A top ten (sort of) of posts from the last week which caught my eye, but I didn’t comment on at the time. I think they’re worth a look, if you haven’t yet caught them. This time I begin with four faith-related and end with four political, with a couple of unclassifiable ones in the middle. Happy browsing.
- Kevin Edgecomb tried to do away with the mainstream outline of the last couple of centuries of OT study of the Pentateuch by drawing attention to the anti-Semitism of German scholarship behind it. Doug Mangum offered a spirited response, and see also his and John Hobbins’ comments on Kevin’s post.
- With his typical gentle, po-faced, tentative understatement, Scott Bailey rips conservative Christian blogger Tim Challies a new one over reading the Bible on an iPod with the definitively titled Worst. Post. Ever.
- James McGrath draws attention to the irony of the US as a Christian nation in evangelical discourse.
- Nijay Gupta has a two part review of Gordon Fee’s commentary on Galatians. I particularly draw your attention to the problems both of them seem to have with Paul using allegory. I note this in the light of Josh McManaway’s comments on allegorizing in relation to another book.
- Halden has a photo of a protester you shouldn’t look at if you’re easily offended by naughty words or, indeed, shallow thinking.
- The Church Mouse has a good guide to reporting of church news in the MSM.
- Labour MP and blogger Tom Harris has a really good go at the whole “yellow ribbon” (or in this case a green one) phenomenon as it affects Parlaiment on TV.
- Iain Dale offers intriguing snippets from his interview with MP Alan Duncan who lays claim to a greater vulnerability than you might guess from his public persona.
- Marbury continues to draw attention to the female US politician who makes Sarah Palin look like a shy and retiring political genius.
- Oliver Kamm weighs in on the anonymity question I discussed here.
{ 4 comments }
This “tried to do away with” is a misreading unless by “outline” you mean specifically the de Wettian dialectic as expanded by Wellhausen. Nor was I attempting to do anything in merely three paragraphs and a few irrelevant comments. It is a simple, explicit fact that anti-Judaism and antisemitism lie at the roots of various tenets of modern Biblical Studies. Whatever one wishes to do with that information is up to oneself. I reject it them. Others can do as their own moral compass leads them. But my rejection is not a rejection of the entirety of the work that has been done in the last 200 years. Such a reading of what I wrote is absurd, and not worthy of reply.
I did indeed mean the specific de Wette – Wellhausen thing, so I don’t think this is a misreading. However, I think quite a bit of everything else owes something to that outline. It seems, from his comments, that John Hobbins who is far more knowledgeable than I am, is implying the same.
Thanks for mentioning my review. I did not intend to criticize allegory. Rather, I think there are many nowadays discussing whether the modern believer can apply the same techniques as the apostles to the OT (e.g. Childs, W. Kaiser, Enns, Hays, Frances Young, etc…). Personally, I am not concerned with Paul’s use of allegory. The more important question for us is what the limits are to its use. I don’t think Fee was trying to criticize allegory, but, rather, was intending to discuss the fact that the Sarah/Haggar discourse may be a special case of Paul’s use of the OT.
Sorry if I misunderstood you on that point. Incidentally, I’m not sure that Paul’s use of OT isn’t so diverse that it would be hard to say what was a special case and what was “normal”
Comments on this entry are closed.